Why Doesn't Anyone Listen To This Guy?


trulykiwi
 Share

Recommended Posts

The governer of texas needs to quit whining and let this president continue to help the regular american citizens, instead of corporations

Mr. Paul does not agree with the governor, did you read his comments?

This guy is just as all the other right wing nuts, he canott stand the fact that the democrats are in charge; {thank God},

If you are referring to Ron Paul, you'd better get up to speed with him and his views, he is quite far from "all the other right wing nuts".

Are we christians, or are we a bunch of greedy rich idiots who refuse to help the downtrodden?

As a Christian, I take very seriously the role of blessing others. The work of which is not to be simply delegated to a state run bureau. Jesus did not tell a story wherein the Good Samaritan campaigned for a program whereby the Emperor would tax the income of all those living under his rule to create a bureau that would save the man fallen among thieves. Rather, the Good Samaritan used his own means to assist his neighbor.

It is a baseless assumption and a narrow-minded sweeping generalization to say that those who do not like the welfare state hold their position because of greed. Many, like myself, do not like the welfare state because I believe that it is ineffective and wastes valuable resources that indeed could be used to help those that stand in need.

Lets once again begin to live and act in the manner heavenly father has commanded time and time again. lets help one another, and quit this stuff about, "well i earned mine, why should i help those little peons?" Were all in this world together, lets start acting like it once again.

Who has said "Well, I earned mine. Why should I help those little peons?"? This is not the position of Ron Paul, it is not the classical liberal position. The commandment to help our neighbor is precisely the reason economic freedom is necessary. Without that freedom, we are restricted in those efforts.

Holy scripture warns us repeatedly; not to be greedy; to help those whom are in need, to share or even give everything we have to assist those in need if nessacery. this country has herd for the last 8 years nothing else except, war,torture, job losses, breakup of familes, loss of homes, and many other terrible tragedies while all along our government has done absolutely nothing but reinforce the big companies bank accounts with billions and billions of unacounted for tax dollars to go and kill hundreds of thousands of inoccent people; and doing not one single thing to help the unisured, the sick, the uneducated, the homeless, the less fortuante; the phlosophy has been one of nothing more than. take,steal,rob, and deny it all. now there is nothing more to take steal and rob, yet they continue to deny?

Indeed, it is the desire to stop giving to greedy theives and to help the poor that motivates my position of less taxes and smaller government. I am having trouble seeing how the Obama administration is not culpable here. Has it not continued to bail out millionaires and conduct war? Has it not given billions in unaccounted tax dollars to corporations?

It is waaayyy past time for these greedy nut cases to see reality, start acting as the lord would have us.:mellow:

Who are these greedy nut cases?

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great posts guys and it is really obvious to me who actually reads and listens and come to their own opinion on truth and reason, and I can see those who really have no clue. Interesting to say the least.

Ron Paul to me is a well informed man on the American constitution and what it means to be equal and free. If only those of you that knew you would have voted him President years ago and we wouldn't have had this financial mess we have now. He rallied against this over 10 years ago and said exactly what would happen. Do you know what? To the jot and tittle it has happened. You tell me if he is a nut!

I am enjoying this thread and all of you are awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Dr. Paul's employment of the consensual personal contract analogy. It will be interesting to see who, exactly, tries to tie talks of secession over the current issues with the secession of the southern states in the Civil War, and exactly what logic is employed to make the connection.

Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall that our Congress, Republican and Democrat was overwhelmingly in support of these actions.

There's a problem there. Congress is not 'world government' and a country does not, by UN standards (the US being a UN member), have the legal right to just enter a country in invasion or war because it unanimously decides to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a problem there. Congress is not 'world government' and a country does not, by UN standards (the US being a UN member), have the legal right to just enter a country in invasion or war because it unanimously decides to.

The U.N. is a joke. U.N. standards....that is an oxymoron! Sorry, but that's how war works and yes, if we decide to invade a country, that is how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not.

Because then that implies if Australia doesn't like something in America that they have the right to invade your country.

That is totally unsane - that's just an absolutely irrelevant means for solving any problem.

Ofcourse, I'm speaking from the point-of-view of a sane society where we use methods of evaluation based on human and environmental concerns rather than "do what thou wilt."

Funny that you should call the UN a joke, really, (I'd agree, but probably for differing reasons) since it is generally a US entity. Why do you call it a joke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rather unfortunate that people want Socialism, when the realisation is that our economic system has a lot of economic aspects to it right now. I assume you mean socialistic/communistic aspects? I agree too.

Marx's 10 Conditions For Transition To Communism - Let it be noted that Socialism is transitional Communism, in-case you weren't aware.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Council/City rates) Tick

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (U.S. Controller of Currency has stated that the income tax will in the near future have to be about 65% of income to keep serving the debt) Tick

Abolition of all right of inheritance. (We still have wills, so I guess we're kind of safe there?) cross (but for how long)

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (In other words, a situation where you can be imprisoned without much good reason - Patriot Act is a soft example) Tick

Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Central Bank, Monopolies, etc,) Tick (even more so now with an international financial regulatory institution being proposed, which will be the frame work for a World Bank)

Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. tick

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (I don't regard this as a negative) Unsure (can be termed as zoning, what you can and can't do with your own property)

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Green corps? "Obama's" Green army?) tick (labor unions, infringe on the rights of the employer)

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country. Unsure (though I have seen where exits to towns from major highways have been cut off, effectively killing the town, forcing relocation of residents to denser urban areas, anyways taking away your choice to live where you want to).

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. tick (state schools, where the government tells you what you can learn).

Since I used Marx's examples I want to state some things. Communism, has never been truly applied ever, ever. There are many reasons, such as the fact that the technology never existed to eliminate scarcity and provide an equal-everything culture. But the reason why it ultimately failed as our system has is because it's based on an ideology rather than a tangible train of thought that is near-empirical and therefore hard to logically disagree with.

One prominent Marxian ideology that comes to mind is that Marx believed in racial trash - meaning, cultures that are too far behind in their evolution (i.e., not even Capitalist yet) and wont be able to be brought up to revolutionary standard. He makes this even worse by stating that these groups must "perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Marx was pretty much the father of modern genocide.

But anyway, I majorly digressed.

I don't think the notion of sticking to constitutional principles can work, I mean we've seen it fail through being hijacked by financial interests and all sorts of things. What gives us the idea that it'll work this time?

Sure, it might for a while - but ultimately it'll go down the same path over time. Is that really fair?

Imho, constitutional principles would work for a good, honest people. but as society in general is decaying, it I agree that it probably wouldn't work.

I'm sure you can tell I don't defend either side of this false political paradigm. But let me ask, what do you think of war?

War kills unborn children, grown men and women. War destroys everything?

And by my watch, the Republican party (I don't blame them specifically, but by your logic...) has been the cause of many illegal wars in recent times that have killed millions.

It's funny how so many anti-abortionists will fight against abortion, but in the same sentence (all too often) be perfectly fine with the destruction of war which is so much more worse.

For the most part, it doesn't matter which party is in - they'll behave the same because they're serving the same vested interests (not you).

:):):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is the sad end of humanity. I am opposed to War, but I also understand that periodically force is the only means to end tyranny....such as WW I and II.

Yes, to quote General William Tecumseh Sherman,. "War is hell!"

If by recent you mean Iraq and Afghanistan........I don't view either of these as illegal and I seem to recall that our Congress, Republican and Democrat was overwhelmingly in support of these actions. Do I support these actions? Mixed feelings. I must say that I would not want either of my sons going to Iraq or Afghanistan. I seem to recall that the Democrats have had their share of bloody conflicts in the not so distant past....Vietnam and Korea comes to mind.

Destruction of property, but not the destruction of life. Well, perhaps abortion is a much more sterile destruction of life, maybe abortion clinics should blow something up every time they abort an unborn child and maybe people would view abortion through the same lens of horror that war as viewed through.

Here is a basic description of why the invasion is illegal

Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really interested in debating whether the Iraq conflict was/is legal or not. Dr. Paul is entitled to his opinion.....and I often agree with him. But the fact remains that the House and Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use of Armed Forces against Iraq.

Excerpt:

WHEREAS United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

WHEREAS Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president "to use United States armed forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

WHEREAS in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

WHEREAS the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, other than the fact that the last people who seriously advocated this idea sparked a war that cost over a million American lives?

Actually the number was closer to half a million. (620,000). Doesn't have anything to do with this debate, but as a history teacher I like to be exact. There were over one million casualties total which included killed and wounded. This is one of the rare wars where more were killed than wounded. The medical care may have had something to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHEREAS United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

WHEREAS Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president "to use United States armed forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

WHEREAS in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

WHEREAS the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

I am not really interested in debating whether the Iraq conflict was/is legal or not. Dr. Paul is entitled to his opinion.....and I often agree with him. But the fact remains that the House and Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use of Armed Forces against Iraq.

Excerpt:

I would love to know where this Act really came from!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not really interested in debating whether the Iraq conflict was/is legal or not. Dr. Paul is entitled to his opinion.....and I often agree with him. But the fact remains that the House and Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use of Armed Forces against Iraq.

Excerpt:

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. Just speaking in general, I don't know very much about Declarations of War versus these War Powers Resolutions. What I have read is this:

The chairman of the International Relations Committee responded by saying, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn't done any more." Rep. Henry Hyde

Perhaps it is merely a semantic difference but, to me, a Declaration of War says, "Congress is going to war."

Whereas, the other method is to say, "Eh. You know, man, you're the president--just get back to us when you feel like doing whatever. But, if things don't go well, we're going to get all pissy and point out that this was all up to you."

An ineffectual Congress is one of my pet peeves.

Still, I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion. Carry on with response to the original poster.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share